Roughly, but not exactly due to the differences in acoustic environment (e.g., radiation loading, diffraction) between front and back. These ARE short wavelengths we're talking about. If the front and back geometries and baffling are symmetrical, you'll get a closer approximation to dipolar.

__________________
"Pity, wrath, heroism, filled them, but the power of putting two and two together was annihilated."- EM Forster

Originally posted by SY Roughly, but not exactly due to the differences in acoustic environment (e.g., radiation loading, diffraction) between front and back. These ARE short wavelengths we're talking about. If the front and back geometries and baffling are symmetrical, you'll get a closer approximation to dipolar.

Funny you should mention this, on another forum the other day we were discussing pros/cons of removing the end caps of compression drivers (the diaphragm is mostly hemispherical (convex) from the rear) and stuffing the 1" exit, which would either make it a small aperiodically backloaded conical horn if baffle mounted, or a dipole if free air or OB mounted.

GM

__________________Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.

Re: If I removed the rear chamber of an electrodynamic tweeter to enable dipole operation

Quote:

Originally posted by 454Casull ...would it be possible to build an electrodynamic dipole (i.e. cos(a) dispersion) cone/dome tweeter that rivals today's best?

The reason I'm asking is because if this can be done, the effects of baffle diffraction would be much reduced (up until the tweeter starts firing into 2pi space, but then diffraction isn't a problem anyway) because of the cos(a) response - i.e. very little (to no) sound is radiated at 90 degrees off axis.